Shyam Lal Mistri vs M/S. Cameo Share Registry & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Shyam Lal Mistri against the order dated 09.11.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Haryana (in short 'the State Commission') in FA No.1678 of 2011 whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short 'the District Forum') passed in Complaint No.07 of 2001 has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased 25 units of Ind Sagar Scheme of Indian bank mutual Fund from the respondent in the year 1991. Units were to mature in the year 2000. It was alleged in the complaint that he did not receive any maturity amount, therefore, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being No.7 of 2001 The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 11.10.2004 on ground of territorial jurisdiction. Complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission, State Commission allowed the appeal vide order dated 03.02.2011 and set aside the order of the District Forum and the matter was remanded to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh. The District Forum registered the complaint on 20.7.2011. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party No.2 by stating that complainant had already received an amount of Rs.3,445/- and therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any other amount. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 20.10.2011on the ground that the complainant did not come before the Forum with clean hands as the information in respect of the payment received was withheld by him before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission when he filed appeal and the matter was then remanded to the District Forum. After, the District Forum passed the order for dismissal of the complaint, the complainant again preferred an appeal bearing No.1678 of 2011 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 09.11.2012 and the order of the District Forum was upheld.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 insipte of service of notice and therefore, respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.03.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant had filed two complaints bearing No.7 & 8 of 2001 before the District Forum. The complainant had received Rs.14,014/- on maturity of 70 units purchased in the year 1990 and further he received amount of Rs.5,327/- in the year 2001 and in this regard complaint No.8 of 2001 was filed. The complainant had further purchased 25 units in the year 1991. However, he did not receive any amount on maturity, therefore, the complaint No.7 of 2011 was filed. Learned counsel further stated that this is a revision petition in Complaint No.7 of 2001. He argued that no matured amount has been received by the complainant/petitioner and therefore, he is entitled to receive the maturity amount from the opposite party. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint only on the ground that the complainant had not disclosed the receipt of Rs.3,445/-, which he got along with payment relating to other 70 units purchased in the year 1990. As this was received along with pending payment for 70 units purchased earlier the complainant was not sure about this amount. The learned counsel contended that in respect of 25 units, this cannot be the total matured value. Looking at the fact that for 70 units, the complainant received Rs.14,014/- in the year 1998 and Rs.5,327/- in the year 2001, definitely some payment becomes due for these 25 units on opposite party and the complainant is entitled for the same. Both the fora below have not considered this aspect.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated that he has been made party only because initial purchase of units was made through respondent No.2. However, it is only respondent No.1 who has to make the payment.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the counsel and have examined the material on record.

After perusal of the order of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission, it is clear that the complainant had received payment of Rs.3,445/- in respect of 25 units. The District Forum has observed the following vide its order dated 20.10.2011:-

"4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record minutely. The counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand taken in the complaint. However, the counsel for OP No.2 has placed on file certain documents as well as OP No.2 made a statement at the time of arguments to show that the complainant has already received the due amount in this case i.e. redemption value for his units as is reflected through Annex.RB (the copy of Annex is already on the file). This letter has been written by Ind Fund Management Ltd. to the complainant, the copy of which was also marked to the Manager, Indian Bank, Ambala city and this letter is dated 7th May 2001, whereby it is made clear by the OP No.1 that in Consumer Case No.7/01 filed by the complainant, the request of the complainant for repurchase was immediately acted upon and original of this repurchase cheque has been mailed to the complainant on 28.4.2000. Hence there was no delay on the part of OP No.1 in processing the complainant's repurchase request. Since the repurchase cheque did not return back to OP no.1 undelivered, but the same remained unpaid, so the complainant was advised to execute the indemnity bond. On receipt of indemnity bond OP No.1 has sent the duplicate cheque for an amount of 3445/- which was revalidated upto 4.8.2001 through this letter Annex.

R-B. The counsel for OP no.1 has argued that the complainant has received his duplicate cheque which he has deposited in his account with OP No.2 on 14.5.2001 as is reflected to Mark-A. The total amount of this duplicate cheque was Rs.8,772/- out of which Rs.5327/- were for the duplicate dividend warranto in case No.8/01 which was also not received by the complainant earlier. The complainant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.8770/- from his account on the same day i.e. on 14.5.2001 through withdrawal slip, copy of which is placed on file by OP No.2. Both these entries are reflected from the account statement of the complainant, copy of account statement is also attached with these documents by OP No.2. Thus, it is argued that even through the complainant has received all payments in both the cases i.e. case No.7/01 as well as 8/01 on 14.5.2001 which he has kept on concealing before the Forum as well as from the Hon'ble State Commission since then.

Through the documents it is clear that the dividend warrant in case no.8/01 and the redemption value of the units in case No.7/01 were issued to the complainant much earlier in filing of these complainants by the complainant. However, the cheque/warrant of these amount of Rs.5327/- and 3445/- were misplaced/not received by the complainant, so on his request OP No.1 has again issued duplicate warrant/cheque for these amounts on fulfilment of the requirement by the complainant which he has received vide letter dated 7.5.2001 and deposited in his account on 14.5.2001. Even then he has not disclosed this fact in his affidavit tendered as Annex.C on 29.8.2002. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs."

I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that if a total amount of Rs.19,341/- has been paid by the opposite parties for 70 units, the amount of Rs.3,345/- is definitely not complete matured amount for 25 units. If the same ratio for return on investment is considered for simplicity, it is found that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6,908/- as total matured value along with dividend etc. for 25 units. The complainant has already received Rs.3,445/-, therefore, he is entitled to further payment of 3,463/-.

It is clear from the form of the purchased units that the scheme was floated by Indian Bank Mutual Fund and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot dissociate themselves from the matter totally.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.3,463/- (rupees three thousand four hundred sixty three only) along with interest @6% p.a. from 01.01.2002 till actual payment. The order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 45 days.